Author Topic: Election Results  (Read 112118 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #100 on: November 04, 2020, 03:42:16 PM »
Interesting voting trend in Pennsylvania:

Trump's lead:
Reporting  percent   count
75%      11.4%   618,840
80%      8.1%   463,710
82%      6.6%   388,889

Yeah, and the Trumpians will say "looook! The Democrats are stealing the election!" When the mundane truth is that the densest populations report late, and urban areas tend to lean more Democrat than Republican.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #101 on: November 04, 2020, 03:45:37 PM »
Interesting voting trend in Pennsylvania:

Trump's lead:
Reporting  percent   count
75%      11.4%   618,840
80%      8.1%   463,710
82%      6.6%   388,889

Yeah, and the Trumpians will say "looook! The Democrats are stealing the election!" When the mundane truth is that the densest populations report late, and urban areas tend to lean more Democrat than Republican.

And the Republican state legislature explicitly forced this scenario by refusing to allow jurisdictions to begin processing mail in ballots before election day.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #102 on: November 04, 2020, 03:50:15 PM »
I expect another tweet-storm any time now...

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #103 on: November 04, 2020, 03:54:21 PM »
Putting anything else aside, I really don't think we need twitter censoring the President. Just no thank you.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #104 on: November 04, 2020, 04:08:34 PM »
It isn't censorship. It's saying "FYI, this guy is full of *censored*", proceed at your own risk.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #105 on: November 04, 2020, 04:09:29 PM »
Also, a media outlet can't censor anything. That's not what censorship is.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #106 on: November 04, 2020, 04:20:18 PM »
Seriati:
Quote
I just think they overwhelming succomb to a relatively unexamined analysis of "good team" and "bad team."  It's a virtue signalling to the extreme.  They've literally tied their entire identity as a "good person" into voting to support Democrats.
rather than examining the facts and simply coming to an honest conclusion you happen to disagree with.

Oldbrian, I can only call those like I see them.  When arguments are in spite of facts its a point against (e.g., some still believe Trump colluded with Russia).  When arguments ignore reality (e.g., believing that Biden somehow advocated for a COVID policy that would have been better) its a point against.  When there isn't an argument at all (e.g., where discussion is suppressed with violence, or accusations of racism end legitimate discussion, or a sound bite is quoted as fact) its a point against.

But honestly, I haven't talked to any Democrats (despite living in a blue state) that have made a policy argument in favor of voting for Hilary or Biden.  Even here on this board, Trump is evil is the argument.  At best, you get a pseudo-argument, like Biden's going to tax the rich - but totally ignoring that in reality that under Biden's policies the rich will end up paying lower effective rates (just like they always have with Democratic tax policies), particularly the connected rich).  There's a reason billionaires pushed heavily for Biden and it's not because they're going to lose money. 

Quote
Quote
They're absolutely sure Trump is a criminal, but they can't actual show any evidence that supports this (they have all manner of inuendo they believe, but when it comes to evidence is always some form of it's been proven).
Immoral? yes.  Unethical?  Absolutely.  Illegal? Apparently not.  And the proof is in his own books, where he brags about it.  He calls it being a good businessman.

Immoral, how so?  In some way that was different than other politicians?

Unethical?  Based on what?

Illegal?  Again, innuendo.  If only professional prosecutors with an axe to grind could look at every single paper he's ever touched, you're just sure they'd find a crime.  What part of justice is that? 

The ethical obligation of a prosecutor is to investigate crimes, not to investigate people.  Do you know how absurd it is to apparently argue for unethical actions by prosecutors wielding the power of state in a claim that you find Trump unethical?  Is the moral principal here that no wrong can be done, no matter the ethical or legal violations, or violations of the principles of justice, in the pursuit of a witch?  We know he's a witch therefore no means is not justifiable by the ends of finding the proof.   Mueller spent two years chasing that fake pipe dream utterly convinced in guilt without evidence.

Quote
Quote
They're absolutely sure that somehow Trump is unique in the history of the world is his obvious evilness and rudeness, despite that they watched him for years on tv and never noticed it,
Not even close to unique.  But 'not the worst' is hardly an endorsement.  And I did notice it from his time on TV and even earlier.  But I'M not the one who thought he would make a good president.

But he did make a good President.  Now we need to find someone with his policies and intelligence and contempt for the swamp and the ruling political class with less baggage.  Tall order.

Quote
Did I mention how poorly you are coming across when you assume that Democratic voters are simply pulling the (D) lever without thinking about issues or character?  Or that I admire the politician some other state elected?

Not sure why you think they are.  What percentage of people are straight ticket voters and have been for more than 2 decades?  Its surprising, and it means they don't consider character, policies or anything else.  You can watch it at your local election level, where the same people that pull the straight ticket lever complain about the decisions the very people they keep putting back into office make.  There are any number of people who claim they've never voted for the other party.

But again, I don't think this about all voters.  I just think it about the majority.  And I tend to think that there are certainly a larger number of R voters that profess to or actually vote based on character, but there are a bunch that don't.  As recent evidence I point to Doug Jones winning office in deep red Alabama for purely moral reasons, while NJ handily sent Mendendez back to the Senate because of the risk of "losing"  the Senate despite similar and worse ethical issues.

Quote
Quote
They believe every rumor they hear about him and repeat it.
like all of stories about the microchips in the vaccines, or the pedophiles operating out of the back rooms of pizza parlors?

Or that Trump told you to inject bleach or fish tank cleaner to fight Coronavirus?  Or was going to institute marshal law on what now dozens of occasions?  Or that his tax break was for the rich, when it was really a middle class tax cut?  It's funny that the left has been highlighting the same story about the pizza parlors for four years now.  It's almost like its memorable because it's an outlier or something?

Quote
Quote
They honestly believe that hiding criminal activity about Biden is a good thing to do,
Nope.  And again you are supposedly talking about the average voter here.  So you think that roughly half the population is so morally bankrupt that we would do anything to get a Democrat - any Democrat - into office.

I think the party picked Biden because he wasn't scary.  The party is extreme, and there's no question they saw this election as a chance to get a radical shift in policy.  If they had to run on that policy would they win?

I'd place those odds as zero percent.  Wouldn't you think a national media would care about something like that?  So why did they hide it?  Against a backdrop where the media won't let the election turn into a policy debate, all that's really left is character.  If Biden's character is bad, then it really would put to the test your claim that Democratic voters care about character.  I guess the media paid you a compliment, because they believed they couldn't take a chance with sharing the truth with the voters.

Quote
Rather than looking at the shreds of evidence which have been released so far and saying 'man I wish whoever is sitting on the rest would release it so we could see what is actually going on'. 
Remind me, who is sitting on that evidence?  Who has the ability to broadcast it to the entire world but instead decided to release it to a single tabloid?

Not sure what you want released.  There's more public evidence of Hunter's corruption that everything used in Trump's impeachment, Trump's "crimes" and the Russian collusion hoax combined.  Did you look for it?  I guaranty if it was about Trump or his kids it'd be billed as finding that white whale that Mueller couldn't find, that the NY AG couldn't find, that the House couldn't find.

Quote
Quote
and that violating the Constitution to get dirt on Trump is totally okay (though its criminal if Trump gets dirt on his opponent).
Nope again.

I'm sorry "Nope" to what?  This isn't even disputable.  Mueller deliberately violated the attorney client privilege to try and get dirt on Trump, planning all along not to prosecute but to turn the information over to Congress where there is no judge to hold the prosecutor accountable.  Democrat congressmen and prosecutors have made up excuse after excuse to try and force disclosure of Trump's tax returns despite having no legitimate or articulable need in furtherance of legislation or real investigation of a crime.  The FBI openly spied on a Presidential campaign on the flimsiest of grounds and used a FISA warrant to do so, even though if you read their notes their goal was an investigation targeting a US person for criminal (and even then it was a stretch) and not espionage purposes.  The Constitution does not make an exception to the need for probable cause in such an investigation, which didn't exist.  Even if you argue that this could be brought in a FISA court the extent of the spying went far beyond anything necessary to determine that there was no spying involved - and you have to ignore that the FISA court's Constitutionality has never been directly challenged - how could it be when it's secret and no defendant even knew their records were illegally seized.  If nothing else, every decent person should care about what was done here.

But even specifically, how many hours of argument about Trump Jr's meeting with a Russian lawyer?  Yet, the Clinton campaign hired a firm to hire a British spy to hire a suspected Russian spy to fee Russian propaganda to the FBI to distract from her unethical and illegal diversion of government records to a private server, and that all was somehow okay and it was okay that those agents of Clinton met with the Russian lawyer before and after the Trump Jr meeting (ie. a set up). 

And what came of that?  Nothing.  Actually beyond nothing.  Exoneration.  Why exoneration?  Because Mueller didn't bring those charges, and there was NOTHING stopping him from doing so as a matter of law.  Trump Jr. had no legal immunity, there was no Constitutional issue stopping Mueller from filing charges.  Why didn't he?  You'd know if you read Mueller's report.  Even under the most friendly interpretation of the relevant law possible, Mueller admitted in the report that no court had ever agreed that recieving true information about an opponent was a "thing of value" as contemplated by the relevant law, and even if you could jump that hurdle (which he knew he couldn't), for it to be criminal Trump Jr. would have had to know it was criminal and there was no evidence he did (and Mueller went on further to say there was no way that anyone could have been certain that it was given the problem with the valuation).  Pretty much an entire fake story written to condemn a non-crime.

Quote
However, reasonable people CAN look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions.

They could, but they're not.  They're citing to conclusions as if they are facts.

Quote
Man, the (D) voters in your part of the country seem like a bunch of *censored*.  Assuming they even exist.  You did quite a job of disproving your initial statement.  I no longer believe that you see the average (D) voter as "almost uniformly good people who mean well"  You can't have that many derogatory opinions of them, of their intelligence, of their moral standards, or of their gullibility and still think we mean well.

Believe what you want.  Most of my friends are Democrats, heck I was registered as a Democrat at one point.  Both Dems and Republicans are susceptible to propaganda and media manipulation.  You kid yourself if you think four years of full court media press, including entertainment and social media, has created more informed voters.

What's it created is a big swell of "hate" against Trump.  I've talked to dozens of people that say Trump is a racist and can't even process that he's actually not, that his policies have been directly beneficial to minorities.  I mean heck Van Jones even admitted it on the air the other day - and got death threats for it.  How exactly does that parse out in the world of reasoned policy on the left?
« Last Edit: November 04, 2020, 04:25:32 PM by Seriati »

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #107 on: November 04, 2020, 04:44:30 PM »
It isn't censorship. It's saying "FYI, this guy is full of *censored*", proceed at your own risk.

Also, a media outlet can't censor anything. That's not what censorship is.

I'm not going to get into the nuances of public vs private. I'm not going to point out that if the tables were turned you'd definitely agree with me. I'm not going to talk about old company towns and their civil-rights violating laws. I'm not going to argue the definition of censored.

The thing Twitter is doing -- by any name -- is not good.  Trump's the President. Jack Dorsey doesn't get to put his opinion next to the Presidents every time he tweets.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1324004491612618752

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1324033983882166272

Jack Dorsey has no special authority or knowledge as to whether these claims or true. He knows approximately as much as you and I do, and we know next to nothing. Maybe there is election fraud going on. Maybe there isn't. If the President wants to say that there is, he can say that, and people can judge for themselves. If Jack Dorsey wants to write on his twitter page why he thinks the President is wrong, he can do that. He doesn't know anything that you and I don't know.

If Orson Scott Card came in here and went around tagging each post that he thought was false with "Note: this post is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process." we'd all throw a mini-riot, and rightly so.

Similarly, it's not Dorsey and Zuckerberg's job to audit us for truth on their platforms. It's especially not their job to audit the President's words.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #108 on: November 04, 2020, 04:57:56 PM »
More than likely if OSC did that, we'd collectively shrug and move on with our lives.

Trump's tweet that he was "up big" is a blatant objective lie. It isn't a matter of opinion. Twitter was following through on a narrow, well publicized policy.

Quote
Twitter announced in September that it would label or remove posts that prematurely declare a victory in the US election, be it Trump or Joe Biden.

Also

Quote
It also announced that it would take down posts that ‘prevent a peaceful transfer of power,’ an action that Trump has not been able to fully commit to when asked repeatedly over the last few weeks.

They have a moral responsibility to prevent the country from unraveling, and it is DJT that is pulling on the threads.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #109 on: November 04, 2020, 05:03:19 PM »
Well, the pollsters either need to find another vocation, or they were willing purveyors of left-wing propaganda. Trump was right, but he will still lose even after a litigious period extending weeks, or months. For as stupid as many on this board believe him to be, neither Hillary nor Biden have shown much of a contrast in public popularity.

What I expect in the next four years:

- Domestic economic collapse triggered, not caused, by the idiotic COVID policies Biden will now feel compelled to implement.

- A Senate that will stand as a bulwark against any attempt to pack the Supreme Court, admit D.C. and Puerto Rico as States, or pass any other item on the Democratic wish list.

- Additional disclosures regarding Biden-family political/financial corruption that will dog his entire presidency with perpetual Senate investigations.

- Widespread apprehension at the display of Uncle Joe’s progressive dementia on the international stage. Short of death, his ego will preclude replacement by Harris.

2024 is looking very good for conservatives.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2020, 05:05:33 PM by noel c. »

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #110 on: November 04, 2020, 05:03:35 PM »

Jack Dorsey doesn't get to put his opinion next to the Presidents every time he tweets.

He kinda does.  It's his company.  It's his platform.  It's his app/program/whatever.  Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different discussion.  But he can do what he wants.  It's his. 

Quote
If Orson Scott Card came in here and went around tagging each post that he thought was false with "Note: this post is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process." we'd all throw a mini-riot, and rightly so.

Maybe.  But he can do it.  Does anyone doubt that?  OSC has rules that we're supposed to follow and has already stated the way he looks at this.  This is his living room.  He can throw you out if you break his rules.  His moderators have been given that authority.  If he wanted to, he could get right on here and add stuff to your post, etc.  You can throw your mini-riot all you want and argue that it's a bad way of doing things.  I might join in.  But he has that right and ability. 

Quote
Similarly, it's not Dorsey and Zuckerberg's job to audit us for truth on their platforms. It's especially not their job to audit the President's words.

They can do what they like.  If people don't like it they're free to leave.  You can argue it's a bad idea, for business or just immoral, but it's still their choice.   

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #111 on: November 04, 2020, 05:08:53 PM »
Quote
Jack Dorsey doesn't get to put his opinion next to the Presidents every time he tweets.

If Trump doesn't like it, he can just close his Twitter account.  :P

Trump is not the boss of Jack Dorsey. :)

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #112 on: November 04, 2020, 05:12:19 PM »
More than likely if OSC did that, we'd collectively shrug and move on with our lives.

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative.  Again, I'm making the left's common arguments for them. Facebook and Twitter are the new public square. Zuckerberg and Dorsey don't get to control what people say as much as the market will bear it. There are rules beyond use-of-force.

Trump's tweet that he was "up big" is a blatant objective lie. It isn't a matter of opinion. Twitter was following through on a narrow, well publicized policy.

No it's not. It's basically true. Trump was ahead in the data in all of the key states last night.

Quote
Twitter announced in September that it would label or remove posts that prematurely declare a victory in the US election, be it Trump or Joe Biden.

Quote
It also announced that it would take down posts that ‘prevent a peaceful transfer of power,’ an action that Trump has not been able to fully commit to when asked repeatedly over the last few weeks.

They have a moral responsibility to prevent the country from unraveling, and it is DJT that is pulling on the threads.

The fact that they announced ahead of time that they were going to do this doesn't somehow make it good.

How could we possibly know who's causing the country to unravel unless we talk about it? On what data and authority has Jack Dorsey decided that all claims about election fraud are false?  If someone were submitting fraudulent ballots and the President highlighted it, it's a huge problem that twitter flagged Trump's post as false or misleading. Why exactly do claims of fraud get dismissed out-of-hand? What are we going to do when there is actually fraud?

I'm not making the case that there is election fraud. I'm making the case that Jack Dorsey et. al. have no unearthly idea of whether there is election fraud.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #113 on: November 04, 2020, 05:12:57 PM »
Oh, yeah, the NY Times as a nice chart that summarizes which states have been called by which major news agencies.  Which shows, for instance, that only Fox News and AP have called Arizona for Biden, but everyone but Reuters has called Wisconsin for Biden.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #114 on: November 04, 2020, 05:16:51 PM »

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative. 

But it isn't a public utility. The public doesn't own Facebook or Twitter.  There ARE alternatives.  They might not have the same level of customers or platform, but there are alternatives.  Even if there were not, it's not the government's job to give you a speech platform or regulate one to suit you. 

Quote
Again, I'm making the left's common arguments for them.

The left is wrong. 


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #115 on: November 04, 2020, 05:29:20 PM »
More than likely if OSC did that, we'd collectively shrug and move on with our lives.

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative.  Again, I'm making the left's common arguments for them. Facebook and Twitter are the new public square. Zuckerberg and Dorsey don't get to control what people say as much as the market will bear it. There are rules beyond use-of-force.

Trump's tweet that he was "up big" is a blatant objective lie. It isn't a matter of opinion. Twitter was following through on a narrow, well publicized policy.

No it's not. It's basically true. Trump was ahead in the data in all of the key states last night.

Quote
Twitter announced in September that it would label or remove posts that prematurely declare a victory in the US election, be it Trump or Joe Biden.

Quote
It also announced that it would take down posts that ‘prevent a peaceful transfer of power,’ an action that Trump has not been able to fully commit to when asked repeatedly over the last few weeks.

They have a moral responsibility to prevent the country from unraveling, and it is DJT that is pulling on the threads.

The fact that they announced ahead of time that they were going to do this doesn't somehow make it good.

How could we possibly know who's causing the country to unravel unless we talk about it? On what data and authority has Jack Dorsey decided that all claims about election fraud are false?  If someone were submitting fraudulent ballots and the President highlighted it, it's a huge problem that twitter flagged Trump's post as false or misleading. Why exactly do claims of fraud get dismissed out-of-hand? What are we going to do when there is actually fraud?

I'm not making the case that there is election fraud. I'm making the case that Jack Dorsey et. al. have no unearthly idea of whether there is election fraud.

Being "ahead in the data" whatever that means, isn't remotely the same as "up big". This isn't like saying "hey my team is up 14-4 in the first quarter, we're up big!" The statement taken together implies falsely that all the votes were counted, and they are now STEALING votes from him. Not that more results are coming in.

If Trump had posted about actual fraud being found, Twitter isn't going to do anything about it. It will also be carried by CNN, BBC, Le Monde, and Ha'aretz.

Speculating about fraud, and stating it as an ironclad fact, is not advancing a conversation. It isn't musing over whether there might or might not be fraud happening. It's the overture to the dictator's symphony to declare elections invalid, and then make it so that every future election is 100% rigged in their own favor. That's the unraveling that I'm talking about.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #116 on: November 04, 2020, 05:30:41 PM »
Also, a media outlet can't censor anything. That's not what censorship is.

So you're saying Twitter is a publisher then?

In that case section 230 doesn't apply to them. That should be interesting.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #117 on: November 04, 2020, 05:33:20 PM »
What I've said is true. Having these big tech companies do what they're doing with curtailing speech and "fact checking" will be much more harmful for democracy and peace than any exaggerated thing Trump has said (and I do think he went a little too far in his speech last night).

You can close your eyes to these dangers. You can argue against it. There aren't words I can write that will demonstrate beyond argument that I am right, but I am right. The role Facebook and Twitter and taking in society -- the role we all collectively allow them to take -- is a threat to all of us.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #118 on: November 04, 2020, 05:37:13 PM »
Also, a media outlet can't censor anything. That's not what censorship is.

So you're saying Twitter is a publisher then?

In that case section 230 doesn't apply to them. That should be interesting.

Don't be daft. Of course they can moderate, which is why it isn't chock full of child pornography. I apologize for saying "media outlet" when I should have said "online community". Happier now? You can get posts taken down for any variety of violations of TOS.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #119 on: November 04, 2020, 05:39:39 PM »
- Widespread apprehension at the display of Uncle Joe’s progressive dementia on the international stage. Short of death, his ego will preclude replacement by Harris.

I'm more inclined to suspect a January 21, 2023 resignation from Joe. That or they drop the 25th Amendment on him on that day.

Remember, if Kamala becomes PotUS on January 21st, 2023 she will have served less than half of Joe's term of office, which means she can run for re-election twice, and enjoy the advantage of being the incumbent in both races.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #120 on: November 04, 2020, 05:40:58 PM »

Jack Dorsey doesn't get to put his opinion next to the Presidents every time he tweets.

He kinda does.  It's his company.  It's his platform.  It's his app/program/whatever.  Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different discussion.  But he can do what he wants.  It's his.

I'm partly agreed, he is in his rights to do what he did.

However, he should not be able to hide behind Section 230 while he does so.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #121 on: November 04, 2020, 05:44:35 PM »

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative. 

But it isn't a public utility. The public doesn't own Facebook or Twitter.  There ARE alternatives.  They might not have the same level of customers or platform, but there are alternatives.  Even if there were not, it's not the government's job to give you a speech platform or regulate one to suit you.

"The public" doesn't own my power company, my phone company, my home ISP, or the cable company giving me cable TV yet they're all treated as "public utilities" for some reason?

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #122 on: November 04, 2020, 05:44:52 PM »
Being "ahead in the data" whatever that means, isn't remotely the same as "up big". This isn't like saying "hey my team is up 14-4 in the first quarter, we're up big!" The statement taken together implies falsely that all the votes were counted, and they are now STEALING votes from him. Not that more results are coming in.

If Trump had posted about actual fraud being found, Twitter isn't going to do anything about it. It will also be carried by CNN, BBC, Le Monde, and Ha'aretz.


Speculating about fraud, and stating it as an ironclad fact, is not advancing a conversation. It isn't musing over whether there might or might not be fraud happening. It's the overture to the dictator's symphony to declare elections invalid, and then make it so that every future election is 100% rigged in their own favor. That's the unraveling that I'm talking about.

I'm not worried about it even a little bit. We're not going to face a Trump dictatorship.

It's a close election. Trump did look ahead last night. Biden looks ahead now. I have been concerned about voter fraud since April and the talks of big changes with COVID. I'm happy to have this election looked at with a close microscope.  Our election system begs to be abused; we need to do it better.  At the end of that process, we're going to have a President, just like we did in 2000. We're not going to have a dictatorship.

However, we are also going to have Facebook and Twitter, and their recent shift in policy regarding speech does represent a major threat to our Democracy.




TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #123 on: November 04, 2020, 05:50:27 PM »
What I've said is true. Having these big tech companies do what they're doing with curtailing speech and "fact checking" will be much more harmful for democracy and peace than any exaggerated thing Trump has said (and I do think he went a little too far in his speech last night).

You can close your eyes to these dangers. You can argue against it. There aren't words I can write that will demonstrate beyond argument that I am right, but I am right. The role Facebook and Twitter and taking in society -- the role we all collectively allow them to take -- is a threat to all of us.

They've already triggered the death spiral, Trump certain poured gasoline on the process, but they lit the match.

A majority of the public doesn't trust the major media outlets, and Conservatives in particular really don't trust the major media outlets. Because they've caught the media in many blatant lies about Trump and other issues. They've caught these organizations trying to "spin" and wildly distort a number of other things(often Trump statements, but others as well).

The major Social Media outlets have now proven themselves to not be worthy of "the public trust" as well with the whole thing about Hunter Biden's Laptop just being the latest and highest profile example.

When people start having to rely on "alternative outlets" for their information because they don't trust the major outlets that opens the doors for stuff to go absolutely insane as it suddenly makes sites like Infowars sound not-so-crazy after all.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #124 on: November 04, 2020, 06:17:36 PM »
Quote
Widespread apprehension at the display of Uncle Joe’s progressive dementia on the international stage.

I find it amazing that the people who worry about Joe Biden having dementia support a guy who speaks to them like he was a 4th grader and brags about passing a dementia test as if he aced an IQ test.  ;D

No sense of perspective.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #125 on: November 04, 2020, 06:22:57 PM »
Drake,

“They have a moral responsibility to prevent the country from unraveling, and it is DJT that is pulling on the threads.”

You should have been more focused upon “moral responsibility” when the left concocted their scheme to undermine confidence in the most basic civic function: our, erstwhile, secure and confidential voting process. That is a thread that will be extremely difficult to re-weave.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #126 on: November 04, 2020, 06:24:24 PM »
If Pennsylvania continues at this pace, Biden will take that state by 2.8%

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #127 on: November 04, 2020, 06:32:11 PM »
WS,

“I find it amazing that the people who worry about Joe Biden having dementia support a guy who speaks to them like he was a 4th grader and brags about passing a dementia test as if he aced an IQ test.  ;D

No sense of perspective.”


For perspective:

Trump’s youngest son is autistic, and I have speculated for some time that he inherited it from his high functioning father. As president, Trump accomplished more, in areas that matter to me, during his single term than Reagan did in eight years. He achieved more in one year of his pre-presidency than Biden has in a lifetime.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #128 on: November 04, 2020, 06:37:06 PM »
The major news organizations have called Michigan for Biden.

If Biden gets Nevada (where he is currently leading and is favored to win) and Arizona (which Fox News and the AP have called for him, although no other major news org), then he'll have reached the magic 270 EV.

Then we just have to see how all the recounts, court challenges, etc. go.  :D

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #129 on: November 04, 2020, 06:46:35 PM »

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative. 

But it isn't a public utility. The public doesn't own Facebook or Twitter.  There ARE alternatives.  They might not have the same level of customers or platform, but there are alternatives.  Even if there were not, it's not the government's job to give you a speech platform or regulate one to suit you.

"The public" doesn't own my power company, my phone company, my home ISP, or the cable company giving me cable TV yet they're all treated as "public utilities" for some reason?

Hmmm, I wonder what the common thread there is... Oh I have it! Those are monopolies. You can't just go to another power company.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #130 on: November 04, 2020, 07:22:29 PM »
And more baseless rumors designed to cast doubt on election results.

Quote
“Apparently the use of Sharpie pens in GOP precincts is causing ballots to be invalidated,” tweeted Matt Schlapp, who heads the American Conservative Union. “Could be huge numbers of mostly Trump supporters.”

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #131 on: November 04, 2020, 07:39:07 PM »
If Pennsylvania continues at this pace, Biden will take that state by 2.8%
And if Georgia continues its current pace, Biden will take that state by about 1%

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #132 on: November 04, 2020, 07:56:59 PM »
Drake,

“And more baseless rumors designed to cast doubt on election results.”

We have a lot of election litigation headed our way, and as acrimonious as I expect this exercise to be in terms of general acceptance of a “President Biden“, there is one huge positive effect. The public will be educated on just how insidiously corrosive “vote-by-mail“ schemes are.

The left made a Faustian bargain, and the devil will have his due.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #133 on: November 04, 2020, 08:41:48 PM »
Trump and team are sounding desperate.  Throwing up Hail Mary's at a furious pace.  I wonder if he will short sheet the beds in the White House when he moves out.

I think Biden might have to pull an Atredies when they move in.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #134 on: November 04, 2020, 08:52:52 PM »
Explaining the 138,000 votes for Biden that then went away a little while later when the typo was fixed.

https://www.facebook.com/memepoliceman/photos/a.1509554889338469/2479736475653634

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #135 on: November 04, 2020, 09:34:20 PM »

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative. 

But it isn't a public utility. The public doesn't own Facebook or Twitter.  There ARE alternatives.  They might not have the same level of customers or platform, but there are alternatives.  Even if there were not, it's not the government's job to give you a speech platform or regulate one to suit you.

I think you're over simplifying. Twitter and Facebook have benefited directly from a government program that protects hosting services that are not publishers, which you can read from it's very terms exists to increase public discussion.  Manipulating political speech is the MOST hazardous type of speech manipulation that can be done.  Effectively Twitter and Facebook both built their market share through fraud, they purported to be content neutral hosting services, they relied on a legal immunity that required they be content neutral with limited exceptions that don't apply, and now they've violated both those requirements and the promises they made to their users.  Heck they both still have places in their TOS that this manipulation directly contradicts.

If you want to keep to your argument, then open the gates and lift their legal immunity for class action suits based on their fraud, manipulation, false pretenses and violation of contract, open up the election interference prosecutions for in-kind contributions in violation of legal restrictions on political advertisements, heck open up the prosecutions for their demonstated failure to actively moderate illegal content with the same abilities they've demonstrated in the political space.

But its unreasonable to take the position that massive monopolies built in reliance on direct government preferences can be allowed to undermine the legal basis for which those preferences exist without consequence.  Cable companies are private and restricted.  Apartments are privately owned and restricted.  Discrimination is illegal on numerous basis for every single business in the United States, and much of it is less damaging to a democracy than this is.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #136 on: November 04, 2020, 09:46:46 PM »
Being "ahead in the data" whatever that means, isn't remotely the same as "up big". This isn't like saying "hey my team is up 14-4 in the first quarter, we're up big!" The statement taken together implies falsely that all the votes were counted, and they are now STEALING votes from him. Not that more results are coming in.

All of which he's entitled to say.  Kind of ridiculous to make this claim after all the lies that have been told about Trump that they haven't qualified.   

Quote
If Trump had posted about actual fraud being found, Twitter isn't going to do anything about it. It will also be carried by CNN, BBC, Le Monde, and Ha'aretz.

Well that's just false, we already know exactly what would happen, exactly what happened when there was actual news about Biden's corruption.  Twitter suppressed it based on a policy that didn't apply (hacked materials) that was never applied in the other direction, including two weeks earlier when the NYT published what could just as easily have been described as hacked material from Trump's purported tax returns.  Neither paper shared the source material, but the leak to the NYTs was likely a felony, and the release of information from Biden's laptop was totally legal.

Quote
Speculating about fraud, and stating it as an ironclad fact, is not advancing a conversation.

Isn't it?  Maybe you've missed the number of times you yourself, and others on this board have speculated about the lack of fraud and stated it as ironclad fact.

Quote
It isn't musing over whether there might or might not be fraud happening. It's the overture to the dictator's symphony to declare elections invalid, and then make it so that every future election is 100% rigged in their own favor. That's the unraveling that I'm talking about.

You mean like by adding new states to the country?  Legalizing all illegal aliens?  Sending votes unsoliited to everyone on the rolls, whether or not alive or even resident in the location?  Changing the laws to allow ballot harvesting (which was already a prime vector of fraud) in CA where it benefits you and decrying it as beyond criminal in NC where it didn't?  How about changing the voter laws illegally through officials that have no authority to act knowing full well that it's impossible to undo (which happened in Austin among other places)?  Trying to only conduct recounts in certain pro-DNC counties in a state, remember Bush v Gore? 

Lol, the DNC has been working to rig the rules for forever.  Why do you think judicial election rule challenges to rules that have been in place for years are always made days before the election?  It's to try and get a judge to make an illegal change knowing full well the courts are never going to over turn the results.  You can see it this year in PA, where the courts violated the Constitution extending the voting deadline, which is exclusively the legislature's mandate, and there's zero chance votes received as a result of that illegal change won't be counted.

How about the illegal election vote by mail groups that have been operating?  Or Facebook's register the vote project that was issued orders by state boards of elections to desist spreading information that was factually inaccurate in their states and in some cases illegal?

There's lots of irregularities out there.  Can you admit it?  Or is this another case of so long as it plays well for the home team it never happened?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #137 on: November 05, 2020, 07:28:31 AM »
And here's one reason why the right wing believes, without any basis, that election fraud is a significant issue. Sean Hannity
Quote
Tonight every American should be angry, outraged and worried and concerned about what happened in the election and the lead up to the election.
...
Do you trust what happened in this election? Do you believe these election results are accurate? Do you believe this was a free and fair election?

And Tucker Carlson was just as irresponsible.

It's hard to blame the right wing when they uncritically ingest this level of disinformation on a nightly basis.  But this is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. They seemingly have no shame.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #138 on: November 05, 2020, 07:46:14 AM »
I've seen pundits on the left saying essentially the same thing.  For different reasons of course.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #139 on: November 05, 2020, 07:55:15 AM »
Really?  Is there a single media outlet that commands nearly the same universal audience of the left?  The closest would be, what, CNN? MSNBC?  And are they really suggesting that the election results should not be trusted?  What I have seen is them bemoaning that so many on the right made the wrong choice, or could not, and that the Democrats failed in making their case.

I don't think "the same thing" means what you think it means.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #140 on: November 05, 2020, 08:01:14 AM »
With 96% of the vote counted in Georgia, Trump's lead is down to 0.4%, and Biden is trending to win the state by about 1.5%...

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #141 on: November 05, 2020, 08:04:11 AM »
Donald,

“And here's one reason why the right wing believes, without any basis, that election fraud is a significant issue. Sean Hannity.”

I think that you have the issue reversed; Sean Hannity believes that this election was corrupted due to the very same reasons that I have been pointing to now for weeks. Unsolicited “mail in ballot requests” and “mail in ballots” are an open invitation to numerous varieties of election fraud... especially where we are now looking at “victory” margins of less than two percent.

Biden will be installed as President, rest assured, but a substantial portion of the electorate will never consider him to be duly elected. His presidency is tainted out of the gate, and he will achieve nothing that cannot navigate the angry obstructionist Senate now sitting in his path to governance.

Congratulations!

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #142 on: November 05, 2020, 08:13:24 AM »
And which of the battleground states sent out unsolicited ballots?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #143 on: November 05, 2020, 08:25:53 AM »
And which of the battleground states sent out unsolicited ballots?
Ummm... Nevada? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy, yoss.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #144 on: November 05, 2020, 08:28:55 AM »

3.  Clear repudiation of a national mandate for either team.  Will that cause any humility?  Doubt it.

4.  Despite all the media hate and manipulation that they could generate,  the shear hatred of Trump by so many, and using average Joe as a trojan horse to pretend the Dems are moderates, the support for Trump seems to have increased, including with minorities.

5.  Whether or not there was ballot fraud, or even massive ballot fraud, once the media "calls it" for Biden, there will be no ability to undo the results.

I think these are the most interesting and important comments/questions when it comes to "what happens next". 

I agree that neither side seems to have a mandate.  Biden will have won the electoral vote by the slimmest margin since....Jefferson I think.  The Republicans continue to hold the Senate, in defiance of most statistical predictions.  Will there be some humility? 

I doubt the Democratic Congress will have any humility.  They have too many members whose brand is "not humble".  I expect to hear lots of continuing noise, especially from the far left members.  The more moderate/centrist Democrats will be happy to let the administration take the lead.  Will the Biden admin be humble?  So far the tone from Biden has been one of reconciliation, but a great deal depends on who makes up the Biden admin.  Nevertheless, I expect the tone to be different than the previous administration.  Of course, I expect the Biden Admin to have an easier time with CNN/MSNBC/NBC, etc, but it helps when you're not saying crazy stuff every week. 

Certainly I can tell you who would not be humble if they had been elected President.  Of that I have no doubt.  So I don't know how certain Republicans can be demanding it now. 

Will the Republican Senate be humble?  I expect Cocaine Mitch to remain in charge.  He was never really much of a braggart.  He was the type, "this is what I can do and I'm going to do it".  I expect more of the same.  He's going to do his best to negotiate from a position of equal strength with the Biden Admin.  Hopefully we're not going to see anymore obstructionist tactics like government shutdowns, etc, but both sides are going to have to compromise.  If the Biden Administration is overbearing and expects to get it's way on everything, then what else should we expect from a Republican Senate?  I expect Biden, as a long term Senator with years and years of swamp/establishment experience, to have a way with getting along with McConnell.  We'll see. 

Will Republican congressmen be humble?  Who cares?  They can't do much.  Maybe complain.  I don't even know who the House Minority Leader is.  It certainly isn't anyone of Paul Ryan's caliber. 

So here's to hoping for the Swamp Thing Administration.  May it be better than the last when it comes to humility, bipartisanship, and a spirit of reconciliation, than the last administration.  It's not a hard bar to get above. 


I read a bunch of talk from some quarters on hatred for Trump, particularly as being responsible for his possible/probable loss.  I personally don't hate The Great 4th Grade Communicator.  I find him distasteful.  Like biting down and taking a big mouthful of turd sandwich.  I don't believe that's hatred.  There is far less emotion involved.  I'm not sure if I honestly hate anyone.  Bashar Al-Assad and his useful idiots might come closest.  Even then, I feel more of the same emotion you would feel when presented with a rabid dog that likes raiding chicken coops. 

I have to admit that there are plenty of Never Trumpers whose dislike has warped their sensibilities into something approaching hatred.  It is at least to me irrational.  The Lincoln Project people, and maybe even the people from Bulwark, are pretty wrapped up in Trump.  I'd expect them to be out of a job and out of things to complain about, but I doubt that Trump will go quietly into that good night.  So they're probably still have things to go nuts about for the foreseeable future. 

I don't think that these people are responsible for Trump's possible/probable loss.  All those people didn't vote for Trump last time.  If Trump loses, it's because of people who switched their vote in Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.  They supported Trump at first and he lost them.  Maybe it was all about Hillary.  It could have been a million different things.  But it wasn't Never Trumpers. 


I don't think that the media is the final arbiter of the election.  If there is fraud, there is room for lawsuits.  The court will be the final decider, as it should be.  If laws were broken and you can show that they were broken, you might have some sort of case.  But the media has little to do with it.  I expect there to be plenty of lawsuits from the Trump campaign.  They've already said they are going to challenge all sorts of stuff.  I expect that no matter who the media declares the winner, the lawsuits and recounts will stretch into January.  When SCOTUS says enough, it will be over. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #145 on: November 05, 2020, 08:33:09 AM »
I think that you have the issue reversed; Sean Hannity believes that this election was corrupted due to the very same reasons that I have been pointing to now for weeks. Unsolicited “mail in ballot requests” and “mail in ballots” are an open invitation to numerous varieties of election fraud... especially where we are now looking at “victory” margins of less than two percent.

I've seen no evidence presented that supports this assertion.  Mail in ballots have been used since when?  The ease at which the process is susceptible to fraud does not prove that fraud occurred.  It simply means that there is reason to revise the laws in place.  Claiming that fraud occurred without proof is dangerous and irresponsible.  Sean Hannity is free to present his case in court.  If he has evidence, let him put it forward.   

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #146 on: November 05, 2020, 08:40:47 AM »
His proof is Trump lost. What more do you need?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #147 on: November 05, 2020, 08:45:33 AM »
Biden will have won the electoral vote by the slimmest margin since....Jefferson I think. 
Biden will likely win either 306 or 321 EC votes - that's more than what 2 of the last 3 presidents won and higher than in 3 of the past 5 presidential elections.

Biden's vote share will also exceed that of Trump and Bush in both his elections - and there is an outside chance that Biden might match Obama's vote share in his second election.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #148 on: November 05, 2020, 08:53:23 AM »
Biden will have won the electoral vote by the slimmest margin since....Jefferson I think. 
Biden will likely win either 306 or 321 EC votes - that's more than what 2 of the last 3 presidents won and higher than in 3 of the past 5 presidential elections.

Biden's vote share will also exceed that of Trump and Bush in both his elections - and there is an outside chance that Biden might match Obama's vote share in his second election.

I was assuming that Trump might win Pennsylvania and Biden only get 270 EVs.  That's still in the air though.  It's possible that Biden could win Penn as well.  I don't expect him to win Georgia or North Carolina.  I predict Biden wins with 270 or 290.  Let's be honest, it wasn't a blowout landslide.  If Biden had won Florida along with Georgia and North Carolina, it would be different. 

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #149 on: November 05, 2020, 08:56:09 AM »
Fenring:
Quote
but I'm not sure Seriati was implying that R voters are magically more virtuous or well-intentioned than D voters are.

I am.  He managed to convince me of that.